Literature DB >> 15197454

[Change of offset after implantation of hip alloarthroplasties].

J Jerosch1, S Funken.   

Abstract

The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the change of the offset after implantation of hip alloarthroplasties. In an experimental study the X-ray templates of 90 different implants (594 different sizes) were digitized (cup and stem) and virtually implanted in the hip joint of 50 consecutive patients who were on the waiting list for hip replacement. Implantation was performed on AP X-rays paying heed to the fit of the shaft and adequate leg length. In total 4500 implantations were performed. After virtual implantation the change of the offset was calculated. There was a wide variance in the ability to fit the implants to the individual patient. For some patients it seems to be extremely difficult to adapt the implant without changing the offset. Some implant designs were only suitable for 2 patients while other designs were suitable for 40 patients (mean: 17). The average change of the offset was 0.27 cm. Considering only the cases in which a change occurs this value increases up to 0.56 cm.For the individual patient the average number of implants that were suitable was 30 (range: 1-67) of a total of 90 designs. Here the average change of the offset was 0.4 cm (-1.04 -- +1.54 cm). Considering only the cases in which a change occurs this value increases up to 0.64 cm. In the majority of the cases the presently available implants do not allow anatomic reconstruction of the individual offset.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15197454     DOI: 10.1007/s00113-004-0758-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Unfallchirurg        ISSN: 0177-5537            Impact factor:   1.000


  19 in total

1.  [Change in the CCD angle and the femoral anteversion angle by hip prosthesis implantation].

Authors:  C Schidlo; C Becker; V Jansson; J Refior
Journal:  Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb       Date:  1999 May-Jun

2.  Optimizing femoral anteversion and offset after total hip arthroplasty, using a modular femoral neck system: an experimental study.

Authors:  T Sakai; N Sugano; T Nishii; K Haraguchi; T Ochi; K Ohzono
Journal:  J Orthop Sci       Date:  2000       Impact factor: 1.601

3.  [Mechanical relations of the hip joint and its association to the angle of the femur neck and especially to antetorsion of the femur neck during the developmental years].

Authors:  E MORSCHER
Journal:  Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb       Date:  1961-05

4.  Superior displacement of the hip in total joint replacement: effects of prosthetic neck length, neck-stem angle, and anteversion angle on the moment-generating capacity of the muscles.

Authors:  S L Delp; A V Komattu; R L Wixson
Journal:  J Orthop Res       Date:  1994-11       Impact factor: 3.494

5.  Torsional stability of the femoral component of hip arthroplasty. Response to an anteriorly applied load.

Authors:  D Nunn; M A Freeman; K E Tanner; W Bonfield
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  1989-05

6.  [Radiological determination of femoral rotation deformity--computerized tomography, optimized measurement accuracy and exposure dosage].

Authors:  B Buddenbrock; H Wissing; R D Müller; V John
Journal:  Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb       Date:  1997 Jan-Feb

7.  The anatomic basis of femoral component design.

Authors:  P C Noble; J W Alexander; L J Lindahl; D T Yew; W M Granberry; H S Tullos
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1988-10       Impact factor: 4.176

8.  Effect of femoral component offset on polyethylene wear in total hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  D P Sakalkale; P F Sharkey; K Eng; W J Hozack; R H Rothman
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2001-07       Impact factor: 4.176

9.  The relationship between proximal femoral anatomy and osteoarthrosis of the hip.

Authors:  H J Mills; J G Horne; G L Purdie
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1993-03       Impact factor: 4.176

10.  Hip arthroplasty using the cementless CLS stem. A 2--4-year experience.

Authors:  R P Robinson; T P Lovell; T M Green
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  1994-04       Impact factor: 4.757

View more
  7 in total

1.  [Is shorter really better? : Philosophy of short stem prosthesis designs].

Authors:  J Jerosch
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2011-12       Impact factor: 1.087

2.  [Implant position of total hip arthroplasty shafts. Establishment of a new method for comparison between planned and achieved shaft positions].

Authors:  A Fottner; A Steinbrück; E Volkmer; F Haasters; F Mazoochian; V Jansson
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2012-07       Impact factor: 1.087

3.  Preoperative digital planning versus postoperative outcomes in total hip arthroplasty using a calcar-guided short stem: frequent valgization can be avoided.

Authors:  Karl Philipp Kutzner; Joachim Pfeil; Mark Predrag Kovacevic
Journal:  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol       Date:  2017-04-08

4.  [Differences between short stem prostheses].

Authors:  J Jerosch
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2014-08       Impact factor: 1.087

5.  Reconstruction of femoro-acetabular offsets using a short-stem.

Authors:  Karl Philipp Kutzner; Mark Predrag Kovacevic; Christoph Roeder; Philipp Rehbein; Joachim Pfeil
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2014-12-20       Impact factor: 3.075

6.  Constrained tripolar liner in patients with high risk of dislocation - Analysis of incidence and risk of failure.

Authors:  A Derksen; M Kluge; N Wirries; S Budde; M Schwarze; H Windhagen; T Floerkemeier
Journal:  J Orthop       Date:  2021-05-25

7.  Long-term results of an anatomically implanted hip arthroplasty with a short stem prosthesis (MiniHipTM).

Authors:  Lars V von Engelhardt; Andreas Breil-Wirth; Christian Kothny; Jörn Bengt Seeger; Christian Grasselli; Joerg Jerosch
Journal:  World J Orthop       Date:  2018-10-18
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.